cairns, since an update hasn't been posted since Aug 19 and you indicate it could be a couple more months, I'm going to go ahead and move it to the Recycling Box. I hate to see it stall with the amount of progress you've made on it, and I was really looking forward to writing the xml, because I think this could truly be an instant classic.

nolefan5311 wrote:cairns, since an update hasn't been posted since Aug 19 and you indicate it could be a couple more months, I'm going to go ahead and move it to the Recycling Box. I hate to see it stall with the amount of progress you've made on it, and I was really looking forward to writing the xml, because I think this could truly be an instant classic.

I think that's a bit rude moving it or any other map to recycling bin at this point simply because it is time to do it.The last few months we've had no end of striking and lack being away so there has been no movement in the foundry at all. i am still waiting for maps xml to be checked over and that's been a patient end for some time now.I would be very peed off is this happens even though it is foundry policy, it was never part of foundry policy to go on strike over someone's politicial issues nor have down time simply because the boss decided to do something and not bother keep the foundry going.Up until the end of the strike i managed to keep things going with my maps, even though everyone else decided to down tools.Now because i am busy with RL stuff, i get penalised by having the maps moved again to recycling bin.I think you're going to have to strike some balance here.

nolefan5311 wrote:cairns, since an update hasn't been posted since Aug 19 and you indicate it could be a couple more months, I'm going to go ahead and move it to the Recycling Box. I hate to see it stall with the amount of progress you've made on it, and I was really looking forward to writing the xml, because I think this could truly be an instant classic.

I think that's a bit rude moving it or any other map to recycling bin at this point simply because it is time to do it.The last few months we've had no end of striking and lack being away so there has been no movement in the foundry at all. i am still waiting for maps xml to be checked over and that's been a patient end for some time now.I would be very peed off is this happens even though it is foundry policy, it was never part of foundry policy to go on strike over someone's politicial issues nor have down time simply because the boss decided to do something and not bother keep the foundry going.Up until the end of the strike i managed to keep things going with my maps, even though everyone else decided to down tools.Now because i am busy with RL stuff, i get penalised by having the maps moved again to recycling bin.I think you're going to have to strike some balance here.

It was time to do it almost two weeks ago, I just hadn't yet done it to give you the benefit of the doubt, and with the understanding that the foundry had been moving slower than usual lately, and because I want to see great maps get made. The only reason I said I might move it now is because you indicated it could be until December until you work on it again. You certainly can't expect to have your map sit in here for three more months with no progress being made on it.

But, you do make some valid points about the xml checking, and the creeping slowness of the FF these days, so I will go ahead and leave this be for another couple of weeks. Didn't mean to ruffle any feather cairns.

pamoa wrote:as I love nitpicking I noticed some labelling hesitations3rd bonus label should be "Command Vessel" instead of "Command Ship"

changed everything to Ship, including all references at bottom

Treasury movement legend says twice "to same player's Command Vessel"

Fixed.

for me there is a contradiction or better to say a duplicate when you explainin Command Vessels legend "Bow and Stern can assault ... any Commander's Monarch"and in Conditional Borders "Any Monarch can be assaulted only if holding one region of the same Monarch's Command Vessel"what I suggest is a fusionyou don't need to say it is a conditional border if your legend explains clearly the conditionsand I would avoid the term region speaking of a part of a Vesselso here is my proposition"Bow and Stern can assault each other & adjacent ships""Bow or Stern can assault anyMonarch's Commander only if holding Bow or Stern of the sameMonarch's Commander

i have replaced the word region with position, and i think it is better to have in the instructions on the conditional border separate.Appreciate the fusion, but for me. that also got confusing. so i'm happy to leave it as is.

and also for the beauty of the textinstead of Losing Condition I would say"Commander's deposition : any Player failing to hold one non-Treasury region andone Treasury region or Monarch's Commander, will be removed from the game"

to me this introduces another element into the losing condition. it's only the commanders monarch (not a treasury position)I appreciate your words, but using "deposition" - a lot of players are going to scratching their heads as to a meaning here. Think i 'll stick with what i've got, thanks.

isaiah40 wrote:I cannot see any glaring problem graphically with this one, but are you happy with it cairns??

Wow isaiah40! this is indeed serendipitous.I am happy with it to some extent, but intend taking it through PS to see if i can't better it & tighten it.That will probably take some time before i can get to that process, as i am on my last of 5 assignments this semester and about to start reviewing for final exams for 3 subjects.Then in late Novemeber/early December i have another 6 day block subject.After 10 Dec i should be able to concentrate more fully on these projects.

I'd like to see some graphic input on this one from the blue boys...I've got the XML almost done, except for the small coordinates, and think once we get this graphically stamped we can push it through FF pretty quickly.